Lies are not an acceptable way to win an election

The following commentary by Ruth Platner was printed in the Westerly Sun and is printed here with permission of the author.
—————————————————-
It’s fair to say that most people assume there are legal consequences for disseminating vicious lies, or that repetition of such lies can be stopped. People also assume that no one writing under their own name in a blog that purports to be “news” would dare disseminate statements represented as “facts” unless they were – in fact — true. But these assumptions are false, and this combination of false assumptions can poison politics, and leave the targets with smeared reputations and without redress.

In a country that values free speech, we have set the threshold high for individuals to win suits against those who disseminate defamatory lies. Such suits – in the form of libel or slander suits – are even tougher to win if the plaintiff is a public figure, such as a person holding or running for public office. It doesn’t matter if the position is a paid public office, or one that is unpaid in a small town. The burden is still impossibly high.

A public figure who is the victim of published lies must prove, nearly without exception, that not only is the information false and defamatory, but also that the publication caused specific harm, such as financial losses. This is nearly impossible to prove.

And it is virtually impossible for a person to get a court order to stop a lie from being republished. That kind of order is called a “prior restraint” – and our First Amendment mostly prohibits such orders, and relegates us to simply trying to recover dollars for whatever harm may have been caused by the publication once it occurs.

The lack of barriers to lying and consequences for lying, coupled with the prevalence of the Internet and the ability of anyone – whether they are irresponsible, unethical, mentally unstable or even sociopathic – to start a blog and print whatever they want, about whomever they want, has unleashed monstrous behaviors. I have experienced such behaviors first hand.

I am a member of the Charlestown Planning Commission, which is an unpaid position. I am not affiliated with any political party, and I have held this elective position for 16 years, while working full-time at my regular job. For the past 21 months a blog has attacked me, almost daily, with as much force and venom as is used against national political candidates. The blog, created by leadership of the Charlestown Democratic Town Committee, has written hundreds of articles containing lies about me, other members of the Planning Commission, the Town Council, and our families.

For example, they wrote a story this month that my husband attended a meeting at Town Hall and “began screaming at town hall staff”. It was further reported by the blog that the Town was not filing a “complaint” against him for his conduct – implying that whatever he had done could be the basis for a court action against him. Sounds serious, doesn’t it? In fact, attendees at that meeting – including the Town Administrator — said no one, including my husband, had screamed, yelled or even argued. Everything in that publication – which was based on anonymous “reliable sources” — was a complete fabrication. An Internet search of my husband’s name will turn up this fabrication. Will it hurt sales of his books and maps? We’ll never know.

They wrote recently that one of the current Planning Commission members “lost” her home and thus “must move” out of Charlestown. The truth is that she and her husband sold their home in Charlestown and purchased a more expensive home in another part of Rhode Island to enable them to live closer to a family member. But now her name is on the Internet as having “lost” her home – the implication being that she was having financial and credit problems. Will that affect their future employment or credit?

The bloggers have criticized me repeatedly for supposedly taking advantage of a tax reduction program called “farm forest and open space”. This is another lie. Our farm is not enrolled in the program, we have never applied for it, and I doubt that we qualify. The program attacked by these bloggers is a great program, however, and it has helped many landowners keep their land in farming. But the attacks on me may make farmers in Charlestown who do qualify hesitate about enrolling, wondering if they, too, will become the targets of the blog’s attacks.

A discussion of the cost of community services in which I have participated is twisted by the bloggers into a false claim that I have a “jihad against families with children.” They even wrote that I would be glad to see children run over by cars.

They have written that the Planning Commission’s opposition to the so called “Dry Lands Act” is like the racism of “Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door in 1963”. The Rhode Island chapter of the American Planning Association, the Rhode Island League of Cities and Towns, and nearly every environmental group in the state opposed the legislation. Only in Charlestown were the opponents of this legislation accused of racism.

They have written silly things such as my supposed “hatred of cats”. I love cats. But they have also made more serious false charges — such as allegations of illegal activities, tax fraud, and driving drunk. They have described my commitment to land conservation as a sexual fetish. These are just a few examples of hundreds of lies against me and others.

They have made public service so toxic that only those who are retired, or those with very secure jobs, dare run for election in Charlestown as non-Democrats. They have made a fine Planning Commissioner decide not to run again for fear that attacks on his reputation would hurt his career and ability to provide for his young family. By lying, they have deprived Charlestown of that potential and changed the future.

The issues in Charlestown are about development, natural resource protection, and even casinos. Charlestown’s public beaches, state parks, wildlife management areas, and historic mill villages are assets of importance to the entire state. The management of those resources deserves a passionate debate. I don’t expect that debate to always be friendly or even polite. I’ll accept opinions, even if rudely expressed, but slander and libel quiet all voices until all that can be heard are lies.

Using lies and smears to destroy local politicians and our families is not an acceptable way to win an election. Vicious, false attacks mean fewer good people will run for election and voters will have diminished choices and less effective representation. Voters should be skeptical of the “facts” they may read in blogs and seek out information from publications that adhere to a code of journalistic ethics. Blogs have the potential to be a lively, engaging place to read opinion and debate ideas, but facts are better found in newspapers.

Ruth Platner is a candidate for Planning Commission in the November Election

4 Comments

fed upOctober 26, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

It would be nice if the people that are running, locally and nationally, would just keep in mind we vote them in to do the best for the town, or country, and NOT what is on their “PERSONAL” agendas.
Also, the so called “bloggers” are just people. They may think they are better or more important than the rest of us, but they are not. They get behind their computers and bad mouth and spread rumors because there are no consequences to their actions. (It’s a bit like liquid courage.) And it’s pretty sad because all of them are old enough to know better.

Mr. & Mrs. Collette clearly think most people in Charlestown are idiots for not seeing through this ruse – a carefully co-opted campaign to gain political power (or at the very least, hope voters are too busy to pay attention.)

After spending 25 years in Washington as political organizers they retire (and retire quite young) to Charlestown where they decide to take over the Democratic Party in what they think is a carefully crafted campaign to fool local voters and take over town politics. New resident and Council candidate Tom Ferrio moves to town and joins them, setting up two new websites – one the “official” Charlestown Democrat website that claims to oppose the awful negativity in local and national politics – the other the “unofficial” and “completely unaffiliated” so-called Progressive blog (hate and slander might be Progressive Values in DC but they are neither “progressive” or welcome in Charlestown.)

Unlike other Democrats they oppose and mock land conservation efforts, “do not fear” a Carcieri Fix that would allow a casino in Charlestown, and oppose Affordable Housing reforms that would actually provide MORE affordable housing for the poor they claim to support. What they really support is new and unnecessary construction for local wealthy developers, and a desire to replace town volunteers with new municipal employees costing taxpayers considerably more.

Meanwhile, even as Mrs. Collette and others on the “official” Democratic Town Committee website claim to oppose divisive, negative political attacks, she has Mr. Collette engaging in divisive negative attacks, slandering anyone in Charlestown that stands in their way to gain political power to develop Charlestown like Westerly and South Kingstown have been. Mr. Ferrio, Mr. Collette and others attack their neighbors, asserting that anyone who supports land conservation or common sense lighting ordinances are “anti-family” people who would rather see children die, run over in unlit parking lots rather than expend funds going to school (I kid you not – this is what they’ve said).

Affordable Housing reform advocates to them are “George Wallace Racists” and they compare town volunteers and elected officials to genocidal dictators. Then to top it off , their victims of slander can expect to see photos of their homes pulled off of town appraisal websites in case anyone wants to visit the homes of these racist kid-hating town volunteers.

In this ruse, Mr. Collette’s wife and all of the Democratic endorsed candidates can then stand back and claim to have no association with the Slander-Blog run by their fellow CDTC member and running-mate. Instead they run for office as clean, good government candidates who claim that they “just can’t control the CDTC’s chairs husband” or have no responsibility the other CDTC members who write on “Propaganda Charlestown. ” Do they really think they are fooling anyone?

Of course, none of the awful things they say about long-time residents and advocates for land conservation and Smart Growth is true – they twist statements and positions and then claim they have backed up their slanderous allegations with “facts.”

Not all Democrats have been fooled, and some have left the local Democratic Town Committee.

But the Ferrios and Collettes are hoping they can fool enough Democrats in a Presidential election year where President Obama’s coattails might sweep them into office. Town volunteers will cease volunteering – knowing they are likely the next targets of Mr. Collette’s slander – and they will seek to raise taxes, and hire more public employees to take over duties currently performed laudably and affordably by commission volunteers.

It’s troubling and quite sickening that they think they are fooling anyone – but most people have little time to pay attention to these things – and their plan may very well work.

I endorse this wholeheartedly. If only national and local politics would remain factual, not distort statistics and be rational the world would be a pleasanter place. “Politics” has got a dirty name from all the name calling and mud slinging. It turns one off from engaging. I value the contributions that town volunteers have made but hope they will allow open and rational debate about issues and investigate all sides. Invective turns me off.